sustainability Article Rethinking on Cultural Sustainability in Architecture: Projects of Behruz Çinici Ikbal˙ Ece Postalcı * and Güldehan Fatma Atay Department of Architecture, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Architecture, Fındıklı 34427, Istanbul, Turkey; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +90-212-2521600 (ext. 4252) Received: 7 October 2018; Accepted: 25 December 2018; Published: 18 February 2019 Abstract: This study aims to open a discussion on the concept of cultural sustainability in architectural design. We asked the question of whether spatial planning has a role in cultural sustainability and in which terms cultural sustainability could be considered or discussed in the design process. We started with a presupposition of an example that achieved cultural sustainability in time. We exemplified a holiday resort village designed in 1970, which is still in use with inconsiderable transformations. Social engineering was a necessity for the architects, Altu˘gand Behruz Çinici, and their design approach was to achieve sustainable living considering financial, ecological, environmental, and cultural dimensions. Behruz Çinici and his wife, Altu˘gÇinici, were influential architects of their time. For an understanding of Çinici’s design concepts, we first looked at the inspiration sources mentioned in his conferences. After studying their village projects, we suggested four spatial concepts for reading projects from the perspective of cultural sustainability. We analyzed their three resort villages, which were designed in the same decade, through the criteria we have suggested. In the evaluation, the distinguished features of Çinici’s resort projects are discussed in relation to the concept of cultural sustainability. In conclusion, we aim to open a discussion for the criteria we proposed for cultural sustainability in spatial planning, and to emphasize the importance of cultural practices for housing policies for regional identity in a global world. Keywords: cultural sustainability; housing; spatial planning; resort village; Behruz Çinici 1. Introduction The concept of sustainability has been a topic in architectural circles since the mid-1990s [1], but cultural sustainability is a rather new issue for architects. The three pillars of sustainable development were declared in the Brundtland Report in 1987 as economic, social, and environmental sustainability [2], yet the cultural dimension of sustainability did not take part in international policy until the 2000s [3]. Architecture as a social discipline is influenced by the economic, technical, and political developments of society, and is concerned with almost all dimensions of sustainable development, including the cultural sustainability. The ecological dimension of sustainable development is the main concern of architects and urban designers who consider renewable sources in the formation of the built environment. These concerns are inadequate without the social and cultural dimensions of sustainability, as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declares that no development is sustainable without including the “culture” and “full integration of culture into sustainable development policies” [4]. Today, cultural sustainability is considered to be the fourth pillar of sustainable development, together with the economic, environmental, and social dimensions [5]. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1069; doi:10.3390/su11041069 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, 1069 2 of 17 It is not surprising that unique local experiences are becoming increasingly popular in the standardized products, services, and spaces of the globalized world. Many cultural products and services have already been adapted to the global market in order to satisfy the need for authenticity. Cultural features are also used in spatial design to create architectural product identity on the global stage, which more often ends up as kitsch. This loss in meaning becomes the main issue with the accelerated flow of cultural products and features. In this sense, cultural practices are more valuable than ever in the search for authentic representation. Thus, we can assume that the conservation of historic buildings is not adequate for the sustained continuity of cultural practices. The spatial qualities of build environments are questions of where the cultural practices take place and the contribution of design strategies to cultural sustainability. 1.1. Definitions and Descriptions This article focuses on the contextual relationship between spatial planning and cultural sustainability and searches for the spatial qualities of a built environment that achieve cultural sustainability. The built environment, as an architectural product, reflects the culture of its inhabitants—the architects, the users, and the investors. We also have to account for the technology of the day, force majeure of the natural environment, and the sanction power of the authority of this reflection. Because all these data sets play a role in the production of the built environment and its cultural reflections, on which subjects should we focus to understand the relationship between spatial planning and cultural sustainability? It is necessary to give definitions of the terms culture and cultural sustainability before we make connections with spatial planning. Culture has a broad meaning and has various definitions in different disciplines, which makes it more difficult to discuss when we talk about sustainability. Bozkurt Güvenç, as an architect and anthropologist, has pointed out the different uses of the word culture in four fields. Culture is civilization in the scientific field, the product of training processes in social fields, aesthetics in fine arts, and a production and agriculture reference in technologic and biologic fields [6]. Similarly, a Welsh theorist, academic, and critic, Raymond Williams, describes culture as a developed state of mind, as in a person of culture; the process of this development, as in ‘cultural interests’ and ‘cultural activities’; the means of these processes, as in culture as ‘the arts’ and ‘human intellectual work’; and as ‘a whole way of life’, ‘a signifying system’ through which a social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced, and explored [7]. Cultures can exist at the global, national, regional, city, neighborhood, and super-culture levels [8]. What we understand of and how we describe culture changes with time. Thus, academics and researchers develop various approaches to the concept of cultural sustainability, as it has to do with maintaining the aspects of cultural beliefs, cultural practices, and heritage conservation that change with technology. Cultural continuity and cultural practices are considered as indicators of cultural sustainability in spatial planning. In the social sciences, cultural continuity is the transmission of meanings and value characteristics of culture, across time and generations [9]. Cultural continuity is the spread of cultural heritage from one generation to another and includes the means by which that transmission is done [10]. Every culture has cultural scripts concerning the favored patterns of thought and action that are considered cultural ideals. When groups move from a homeland to a new country, the scripts move with them. These scripts become a major source of cultural continuity in the transition [11]. As changes occur in values or in the environment, aspects of the culture may be lost, leading to changes in cultural continuity [12]. Continuity can only be possible by analyzing the change and making a connection between past and future that is based on humanity [13]. The term cultural continuity was first used in the 1960s in Turkish architectural journals [14], and then the issue was related to new housing projects and traditional Turkish houses in the 1980s, with criticism of cultural degeneration parallel to transition process in Turkey [15]. Cultural practices involve everything that humans do, above and beyond instinctual or unconditioned behaviors, not Sustainability 2019, 11, 1069 3 of 17 only in art and literature, but also in agriculture, manufacturing, recreation, war-making, childrearing, and behavioral sciences [16]. By way of cultural practices, the orientation and spatial behaviors of the society are developed. This relates to the users in our case, and the customs they have developed while using the space, such as the intimacy of the room, the use of open and half-open spaces, the seaside routines, spending time with neighbors, and so on. Studies on cultural sustainability considered continuity as cultural heritage in terms of manmade objects, landscapes, and combined man and nature systems in the past, while today it is considered as cultural heritage in terms of the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills, instruments, objects, artifacts, and cultural spaces associated with cultural practices, including tradition, identity, values, cultural diversity, spirituality, and aesthetics. It is envisioned that these will involve tools and skills that will change the world in terms of sustainability in the future [17]. Regarding these definitions, the importance of the continuity of cultural practices for achieving cultural sustainability in the built environment is obvious. An architectural product, building, or built environment is not only a piece of cultural heritage to be conserved, but also a stage for the cultural practices to